A useful medical article should leave you clearer about a question, not simply give you more information to sort through. You should be able to see what the evidence says, what it cannot tell us and who checked the article. These are the editorial requirements for medical articles produced by FreeBooks4Doctors.com.
The book directory has a different role. A listing helps you find a book; it is not a claim that our editors have checked every page or endorsed its recommendations. The article-review procedures below apply to our own writing.
Who is responsible for an article?
The byline must identify the person responsible for the text. An upload account is not proof of authorship. Anyone credited must agree both to that credit and to the work attributed to them. Editors must not invent qualifications, clinical experience, patient encounters or personal accounts.
The editor must check that the medical reviewer has relevant qualifications and experience. Some subjects need specialist input. A general medical qualification is not a reason to give every specialist topic to one person.
A separate medical-review credit requires a reviewer other than the author. A profile, a professional title or a review of another article does not amount to approval of this one. Neither does a longstanding relationship with the website.
Before a new medical article is published
Prior to publishing a new medical article, the editor should be able to provide answers to the following questions regarding the article and the supporting documentation for the article:
- What question does this article attempt to answer? Who is this article intended for?
- What evidence-based references support the clinical assertions made in this article?
- Is there fair representation of benefits, potential harms, alternative options and significant limitations/uncertainties in this article?
- Do any of the recommendations made in this article assume a specific geographic region, age range or type of healthcare provider?
- Are any images, captions, tables and illustrations provided in this article accurately depicted?
- Was the final version of this article reviewed by an appropriately qualified medical reviewer?
- Are relevant financial interests and any funding or sponsorship of this article disclosed?
Any new clinical articles or clinically-substantial revisions to existing clinical articles must remain unpublished until the requisite review has been completed. Editing articles for grammar, punctuation and readability is useful, however, it is not equivalent to a medical review.
What a medical review covers
The review covers the interpretation of evidence, the limits of practical advice, warning signs and medication statements. The reviewer should also look for wording a reader might misunderstand. Images and captions are part of the work, not an afterthought. Any unresolved clinical questions must go back to the author or reviewer before publication.
Approval of an article should reflect an identifiable version of that document. FreeBooks4Doctors.com’s editorial records should contain a record of who conducted the review, when it occurred and which version of the article was reviewed. Publicly available versions of articles should include identifying information regarding author(s), reviewer(s), medical review date(s), evidence search date(s) and when the next scheduled review is due.
Publication dates or regularly-scheduled updates to our websites may not be substituted for medical review dates.
Writing tools and medical images
We may use software, including AI-assisted drafting and editing tools, to organise material or improve clarity. A human remains accountable for the result and must check it against its sources. No tool may be used to invent citations, diagnoses, credentials, patient experiences or review approvals.
An AI-detection score cannot establish medical accuracy or authorship. Passing a writing-tool check does not replace clinical review.
Generated medical images must be labelled as illustrations, not presented as photographs of real patients. Clinical photographs require appropriate rights and consent where applicable. Examples and composite cases must be described honestly. Pictures should help explain the text without suggesting that appearance alone can establish a diagnosis.
Older articles and review labels
This policy applies to all current and future articles. Publication of this policy does not retroactively validate our archives.
An article without documented approval must not carry an unqualified “Medically reviewed” label. Changes after approval may require a new review. An overdue review should be visible and brought to the editor’s attention. The Content Update Policy explains how these situations are handled.
Editorial questions
Questions regarding articles, authorship and review credits can be submitted through our Contact Us form. Please include both the URL of the article and the portion of the text you would like us to evaluate. The Corrections and Editorial Complaints Policy provides further information regarding how we will handle complaints regarding articles.